Originally posted by Greg Locock China is building a coal fired power station every week, they don't need and can't afford to pamper their consciences with wind power.

They are going nuclear soon. My mate who makes the Cold Isostatic Presses knows lots about various materials and compounds from that area and is developing to build the control rods for supply and thats how I know.

Originally posted by Greg Locock and that is compatible with their current practice of building a coal powered power station /every week/ how exactly?

Well that's the headline grabber, but how much, solar, wind, hydro and nuclear capacity are they creating every week? The fact is that China is industrialising and westernising their standard of living at a rapid rate and that requires a lot of generating capacity when you have over a billion people. Fact is they are increasing the renewable fraction of their generating capacity faster than any country in the world.

Originally posted by Greg Locock China is building a coal fired power station every week, they don't need and can't afford to pamper their consciences with wind power.

Well, for every megawatt of windpower you install, you need about 0.92 megawatt of backup power, and if you don't have hydropower availible, that generally means a fossil fueled powerplant. So, windpower can't really replace conventional power, and it's also quite expensive (the cost will be added to your electricity bill, or it will come as increased taxes). In addition, compared to nuclear and hydropower, the carbon emissions per kWh is greater too, and that's excluding emissions from 'standby' power. Windpower also generates a lot of 'noise' on the grid.

Originally posted by robroy

Oh dear, 40kWh is about 1 gallon of fuel isn't it? And thats decent lithium batteries too. Perhaps we'd better put in place some regulations now that make the current petrol powered cars go further per gallon of fuel. I guess we could use a massive amount less downforce with battery cars too and regen braking would help. I've also got a feeling that Formula one teams would be able to get more out of a battery than any other part of the automotive industry.Having said that, I agree the racing could be problematically poor until some serious developments occur.

With little regard to cost, safety and battery life, you can obviously make a battery with excellent energy and power density. But such technology isn't really relevant for road car technology where cost, safety and battery life are the big issues.

One liter of gasoline contains about 9 kWh of energy, so 40 kWh is about the energy content of 4.4 liters or 1.2 US gallons. Charging a 40 kWh battery pack with an average grid mix would also result in CO2 emissions of about 20-25 kg, about the same amount caused by 8-10 liters of gasoline.

Originally posted by gruntguru Well that's the headline grabber, but how much, solar, wind, hydro and nuclear capacity are they creating every week? The fact is that China is industrialising and westernising their standard of living at a rapid rate and that requires a lot of generating capacity when you have over a billion people. Fact is they are increasing the renewable fraction of their generating capacity faster than any country in the world.

They are producing heaps of alternates. I will be looking at the worlds most efficent garbage seperator soon I hope, 95% separation of organic material.

Wind turbines are coming on big time and solar panels made here are rapidly coming down in price this year. I'm sure many of you know of 3 Gorges Hydro Dam too. They don't just sell the wind turbines overseas, China has big wind farms like everywhere else in the world, State run.

By the way, you Guys with your privatised services can't even imagine how much services are here, for power, gas and water as well as guards, cleaners and garden maintenance (private housing estate) is about $50 aus per month.

Originally posted by J. Edlund One liter of gasoline contains about 9 kWh of energy, so 40 kWh is about the energy content of 4.4 liters or 1.2 US gallons. Charging a 40 kWh battery pack with an average grid mix would also result in CO2 emissions of about 20-25 kg, about the same amount caused by 8-10 liters of gasoline.

I believe that electic motors can get three times the distance on their 40kwh though. Tesla have got some interesting figures that show well to wheel efficiency in a rather different light.http://www.teslamoto...ll_to_wheel.php

How believable the figure are, I'm not too sure. It is after all compiled by people attempting to justify electric cars.

"In addition, compared to nuclear and hydropower, the carbon emissions per kWh is greater too"

Do your figures take into account the carbon emmissions when constructing and setting up nuclear power stations and hydropower, as well as the carbon emmissions involved in wind turbines?

Originally posted by gruntguru Well that's the headline grabber, but how much, solar, wind, hydro and nuclear capacity are they creating every week? [/URL]

I think China have got it right. While renewable energy is relatively very expensive they are building and designing lots of it but selling it to other countries. These countries are paying for the development, while China gets to keep the technology and production capabilities for themselves. In another ten or twenty years time when renewable energy becomes the cheaper one, they'll be the ones who'll find it easiest to change and they'll be the ones who'll control the worlds next No.1 energy supply.

I think China have got it right. While renewable energy is relatively very expensive they are building and designing lots of it but selling it to other countries. These countries are paying for the development, while China gets to keep the technology and production capabilities for themselves..

I hope your not suggesting for a moment that China (or any other Asian country) copy anything of others......?

There's was an interesting article in Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant last saturday. A factory there is standing ready for converting normal cars to electric cars, as soon as the loading points are installed (which is being done now). Anyways: the reporter take a spin in a converted Golf. And at 65 miles per hour decides to test the accleration of the car by pressing the throttle... he almost crashes, such is the speed the car takes of. The engineer in the article: 'We asked Volkswagen to curb to power. These electric engines are just too powerfull for normal cars!'

Originally posted by Chezrome ... the reporter take a spin in a converted Golf. And at 65 miles per hour decides to test the accleration of the car by pressing the throttle... he almost crashes, such is the speed the car takes of. The engineer in the article: 'We asked Volkswagen to curb to power. These electric engines are just too powerfull for normal cars!'

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld Which would be representative of most of the driving public.

Silly nonsense Ross, John Smith needs a 300hp, 150 mph family car to take little Johnny to school and for Martha to go shopping and I demand that Governments all over the world install more road signs, speed cameras and increase secondary safety to cater for the "other idiot" who can't drive.

Originally posted by J. Edlund Charging a 40 kWh battery pack with an average grid mix would also result in CO2 emissions of about 20-25 kg, about the same amount caused by 8-10 liters of gasoline.

Interesting thanks. I've often wondered, in response to people's arguments that 'electricity comes from coal anyway' whether a power station is more efficient than refining and transporting crude oil and fuel all around the world. How would you figure those matters in these calculations?

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld Which would be representative of most of the driving public.

Possibly. Possibly not. Where are the 65mph - 75mph times? 'Such is the speed of the car'? What does that mean? He was in control, he didn't have to drive the car at a speed that ..'he almost crashes'. Without knowing the performance figures for the car and what experience of driving the journalist has, how can we tell? If he's recently passed his test and his normal journalistic duties mean articles about the tulip harvest, but he was the only journalist available when the editor needed a comment on the Golf, how valid are his comments?

Having been on a few press drives and media events, my experience is that the working level auto journalist for this local newspaper or that website is really representative of the general pubilc, and should not be assessing anything related to vehicle performance. That some of them should be licensed drivers to begin with is highly questionable. The big names with the big magazines obviously are different, but they are few.

On point, if all IC engines are eventually banned, and all motor racing went electric, well I doubt my level of interest would or could remain the same. As an engineer, the powerplant is what it is because that is what manufacturers make, and that is what rulesmakers mandate. But as a fan, there is a magic to the IC engine that, even if it exists for electric motors (and for some people it surely does), it is a magic that I cannot appreciate. Racing is racing for sure, especially from inside the helmet or the team. But to a fan, I suspect there are other aspects that are as important as the racing itself.

When the APBA unlimited hydroplanes used to have the one piston engine powered boat in an otherwise turbine powered field, it was an awesome sight and sound, and on it's own it certainly seemed fast. Until the whirring turbine boats quietly lapped it. Progress is good, and inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to welcome all of it with open arms.

Originally posted by GrpB On point, if all IC engines are eventually banned, and all motor racing went electric, well I doubt my level of interest would or could remain the same. As an engineer, the powerplant is what it is because that is what manufacturers make, and that is what rulesmakers mandate. But as a fan, there is a magic to the IC engine that, even if it exists for electric motors (and for some people it surely does), it is a magic that I cannot appreciate. Racing is racing for sure, especially from inside the helmet or the team. But to a fan, I suspect there are other aspects that are as important as the racing itself.

When the APBA unlimited hydroplanes used to have the one piston engine powered boat in an otherwise turbine powered field, it was an awesome sight and sound, and on it's own it certainly seemed fast. Until the whirring turbine boats quietly lapped it. Progress is good, and inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to welcome all of it with open arms.

"Interesting thanks. I've often wondered, in response to people's arguments that 'electricity comes from coal anyway' whether a power station is more efficient than refining and transporting crude oil and fuel all around the world. How would you figure those matters in these calculations? "

It all depends on what you mean by efficiency. In an engineering sense the answer is straightforward, if you can agree on what numbers to drop into the equations.

Roughly 85% of the calorific value of the dead dinosaurs ends up in your fuel tank (that is extraction, refining and transport take 15%), which you might then be able to into shaft horsepower with something like 15-30% efficiency in your engine (on average). So net efficiency to shaft hp is 19%

In comparison roughly 70% of the dead dinosaurs ends up in the coal heap outside the power station, which might aspire to 42% efficiency (CHP doesn't count), and then is transmitted into the grid (lose another 10%) and through the charger (lose another 2 to 10%) into the battery. The motor and electronics is 90-95% efficient. So overall the efficiency to shaft horsepower is 0.7*0.42*0.9*0.96*0.925= 23%

But the EV is also more efficient (generally) at turning battery power into motion than a ICV is at turning shaft horsepower into motion.

If your definition of efficiency is $ (and that is not a daft point of view) then the answer is different. If your definition is CO2 released per passenger km at say 100 km/h then you get a different number again - a diesel powered 5 seater SUV would be pretty hard to beat with a less convenient solution.

Originally posted by cheapracer I'm sure the same would have been said on the passing of steam trains etc.

That is what has happened, cheapy, I admit that it must be a thrill to see a train pass at 200+ mph, but it doesn't have the drama of a steam locomotive. The Child Bride and I had a trip on a train pulled effortlessly and smoothly by a beautiful steam loco. last year, and at every level-crossing, in every village and at every country vantage point people waved and/or took photographs. I felt like Royalty! I wonder if train-spotting is as popular as it was in the days of steam. I'm not a Luddite, I am annoyed that we in the U.K. have such a relatively poor rail service, when once we lead the World, but Motor Racing is not about mass transport, or improving road cars, it is either sport, entertainment or advertising, depending on your point of view, and one of the most important aspects - the one that comes over least well on TV - is the sound! Electric racing cars will interest me, but not as much.

I've just realized that at one time Motor Racing was about mass transport - Jochen....

Just as an aside since it's been mentioned, a new steel works came to be late last year 20 minutes from my home. They are so big they have their own trainline system and they have 2 working steam trains doing the yard haulage.

Possibly. Possibly not. Where are the 65mph - 75mph times? 'Such is the speed of the car'? What does that mean? He was in control, he didn't have to drive the car at a speed that ..'he almost crashes'. Without knowing the performance figures for the car and what experience of driving the journalist has, how can we tell? If he's recently passed his test and his normal journalistic duties mean articles about the tulip harvest, but he was the only journalist available when the editor needed a comment on the Golf, how valid are his comments?

I'm sure the same would have been said on the passing of steam trains etc.

Without a doubt this is true. And barring teleportation, the better we are able to engineer modes of transport, the less exciting to behold the resulting vehicles will be in their intended use. Ideally, there is no vehicle NVH, there is no perceptible motion of the (currently) sprung passeneger compartment, acceleration in any axis is always completely controlled, with very high efficiency for all operating systems, incapable of being misguided by operator error, and able to get from one point to another in less time that it takes now. Every iteration of passenger vehicle more closely approximates this ideal. The day will come soon that the navigation system doesn't direct the driver to the destination, because the driver is no longer fully relevant for a large proportion of the transit.

How does racing continue to relate to this ideal, when the goal is to have foolproof, driver induced accident free, efficient transportation for the masses? What will it mean to be a racing driver, when a passenger car 'driver' gets into a vehicle, types in the destination, does some small amount of manuevering to the main thoroughfare, and then lets the vehicle take over? Or today, why not grade racetracks with a base of iron ore or recycled steel particles in a high tensile matrix, so that on board electro magnets could be used to provide downforce and resulting vehicle accelerations that would be far in excess of what a human driver could tolerate, with no drama, as model slot cars do now? If the goal is to produce lower laptimes, improve maneuvarbility, minimize the possibility of loss of control, then why not pursue things like this, especially when they could potentially be applied to passenger vehicles in a way that wings, bargeboards, diffusers, and most any other current F1 feature can not?

Horse racing is no longer the sport it once was because horses are no longer relevant to transportation. When vehicles progress to a certain point I see no reason why racing motor vehicles would also no longer be relevant to the masses and would at best remain a specialized activity for the priveleged few to particpate in and for the few die hard spetcators to enjoy. There is no stopping it because it is the logical and explicit goal of vehicle development. How it relates to racing remains to be seen.

On topic: the reason why electric cars could take a Dutch journalist unawares (and many others!) is the way the power is directly transmitted, like a torch being switched on. A combustion engine needs to rev up, gather 'steam' one could say, while with an electric car...

A picture can paint a thousand words, and a movie can even do more. Take a look at the video I posted in my former carnation (as Jerome), and which resulted in a rather funny and lengthy thread:

I've seen "The Fly" (old and new!) and I ain't stepping into one of those things!!

This is what many people say about current racing vehicles. So, if teleportation were to be the next mass transport mode, then with teleportation racing the risk would be some gruesome congolomerate of what came out of the other end, perhaps the racers would be skilled at relaxing or tensing the body as required to ensure proper re-assembly, and the teleporters would be similar to but much faster versions of what everyone used every day for transport. Racers go into their machines in Canada, reassemble in Malaysia, walk/run/buzz 50 feet to another teleporter to reassemble in Greenland, etc. Perfect for spectators since venue is truly international, lots of excitement, danger etc. How horrible would that be.

Back on track: There are lots of existing (successful?) electric racing car series already, they just happen to be 1/10 or 1/8 scale, with fully electronic actuated control inputs with the driver not onboard. It pains me to admit it but I don't think the success of a series has as much to do with the spec as the marketing and promotion anyway. Or rather, how the marketing and promotion influence the spec.

I would ask about viscous couplings/clutches as related to electric motor output characteristics, but if driveability is one of the key issues with racing electric cars, well, then good luck with that.

" And barring teleportation, the better we are able to engineer modes of transport, the less exciting to behold the resulting vehicles will be in their intended use. Ideally, there is no vehicle NVH, there is no perceptible motion of the (currently) sprung passeneger compartment, acceleration in any axis is always completely controlled, with very high efficiency for all operating systems, incapable of being misguided by operator error, and able to get from one point to another in less time that it takes now. Every iteration of passenger vehicle more closely approximates this ideal. "

To some extent. On the other hand there is a large and growing class of transportation where the sensation of speed and /effort/ is important - bicycles, walking, sailing and so on.

Personally I'd love to have a car that /can / drive itself, and I would be willing to make a fairly big step backwards in driving dynamics to get it. But I'd also continue to go sailing, walking and cycling.

On topic: the reason why electric cars could take a Dutch journalist unawares (and many others!) is the way the power is directly transmitted, like a torch being switched on. A combustion engine needs to rev up, gather 'steam' one could say, while with an electric car...

Chezrome/Jerome, I don't want this to sound like another pedantic rant, but I am familiar with the characteristics of electric motors and i.c. engines - but the quote said that the journalist floored the accelerator at 65mph (it may have been kph), not from a standing start. I just felt that there was not nearly enough information to make a proper assessment of whether the car was 'dangerous' or not

Chezrome/Jerome, I don't want this to sound like another pedantic rant, but I am familiar with the characteristics of electric motors and i.c. engines - but the quote said that the journalist floored the accelerator at 65mph (it may have been kph), not from a standing start. I just felt that there was not nearly enough information to make a proper assessment of whether the car was 'dangerous' or not

I will try to find the article and translate it. I was quoting from heart, you know. I'll be back.

Chezrome/Jerome, I don't want this to sound like another pedantic rant, but I am familiar with the characteristics of electric motors and i.c. engines - but the quote said that the journalist floored the accelerator at 65mph (it may have been kph), not from a standing start. I just felt that there was not nearly enough information to make a proper assessment of whether the car was 'dangerous' or not

Then in English: 'Driving an electric car is rather dangerous, if you drive smack middle on the A2 (the Dutch M1, CR), drive 120 km per hour, and want to test how much power the little electro-engine has still left. When the throttle of the Volkswagen Golf is pressed firmly, the car shoots forward like a rocket. It happens with such a speed that the car starts twisting his tail dangerously. The suspension of the Volkswagen Golf can't handle the accleration. Passanger André Postma clamps onto the dasboard. 'I told you, didn't I? Watch out with the throttle!'

Engineer Postma is specalist electric cars at Enexis, the technical department of Energiefirm Essent. The Volkswagen Golf is the first of fifty electric cars from the company that the company has ordered. 'I've asked the producing company to damp the power with the next deliverments. This is dangerous. I seldom lend the car to coworkers, and only with extensive instruction. Just to prevent accidents.'

I believe that electic motors can get three times the distance on their 40kwh though. Tesla have got some interesting figures that show well to wheel efficiency in a rather different light.http://www.teslamoto...ll_to_wheel.php

How believable the figure are, I'm not too sure. It is after all compiled by people attempting to justify electric cars.

"In addition, compared to nuclear and hydropower, the carbon emissions per kWh is greater too"

Do your figures take into account the carbon emmissions when constructing and setting up nuclear power stations and hydropower, as well as the carbon emmissions involved in wind turbines?

When you show off well to wheel efficiency numbers you can obviously pick the numbers that suit the message you want to send. Tesla have picked natural gas as the energy source in their example, and that's hardly a surprise as natural gas offers the possebility of a very high efficiency for the power plant, up to 60% for combined cycle gas turbines. But, I would say that a 52.5% efficiency is way too high for an average natural gas power plant when you have included the energy required to recover and transport this natural gas, and the circa 8% losses in the electrical grid. Since a natural gas powered hybrid car in the same class and price range doesn't exist, it's difficult to make a good comparison.

The last statement was based on Swedish state owned power company Vattenfalls life cycle calculations of hydro, nuclear and wind power. Wind power was worst of the three, especially off shore wind, but compared to other energy sources such as oil or coal, the emissions are all small.

"Circuits around the world regularly echo to the earsplitting howl of racing V10s and V12s at full throttle. But perhaps, not for much longer.

Motorsport's governing body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, or FIA, has announced plans for a brand new motor racing series, designed exclusively for electric cars.

The new championship, known as Formula E, is due to begin in 2014.

Manufacturers are being invited to design and build their own cars, which will race on city-centre circuits around the world.

It will be run by Formula E Holdings, a consortium of investors led by the Spanish billionaire Enrique Banuelos, who made his fortune in real estate and agribusiness.

The FIA says it represents "a vision for the future of the motor industry over the coming decades".

If you read further:

Fast but silentYet the idea of electric motorsport has plenty of critics. They claim that electric cars lack something which motorsport fans yearn for - noise, and plenty of it.

But according to Lord Drayson, they're missing the point.

"What we're trying to do is create a new racing experience. It will be a different type of car, racing through the city streets, before new audiences, in places where we haven't raced before."

He believes that while older fans may lament the lack of a howling exhaust note, young people simply won't notice.

So if you put too high a priority on the noise then you are too old!

My opinion is electric motorsport can and will happen so why resist it? I grew up racing electric R/C buggies, I've driven an electric go kart, I'm convinced electric motorsport will be just as good as IC motorsport at some point in the near future and this series could be the first step to making it a reality. Technology and science will solve the shortfalls that currently exist and the only thing stopping people embracing it will be preconceptions and ignorance. Or age!